70
since questioning is also part of directives. There were 117out of 137 utterances found in directives category which actually perform act of questioning. For the
other category, namely representatives, commisives, declaratives, and expressives, the number of appearance in sequence were 73, 24, 1, and 13 utterances. From
other categories, questions could perform act namely describing, asserting, accepting, offering, refusing, appointing, and some other act. This finding
clarified that a certain act could be identified by its utterance form. It also implies that one act can be performed through a varied linguistic proposal. The act is
relied on the felicity condition to be able to successfully perform the act. The second conclusion deals with the claim that the conversations were
considered as ill-sequences. The claim was slightly mislead as the term answer was more than just a statement. The findings clarified that the adjacency pair was
fulfilled in the conversation. Though there were also found some question- question pair, it was functioned as an insertion. The researcher found out that the
pair namely offer- accept, invite-refuse, request-accept, etc. and also some other pairs. Therefore, in the level of utterances speech act, this research found that the
conversations were not ill.
B. Recommendations
This research was a pragmatics research focusing on indirect speech acts. The researcher was trying to identify the aspects of conversation that were often
irregular due to the definition of the conversation itself. However, indirect speech
71
acts was often related to politeness. This is not the case that conducting research on indirect speech acts is restricted to only study the politeness.
For the future researcher, the similar research on indirect speech acts can be focused on some other subject. However, the researcher believes that the study
on indirect speech acts should fit well with some comedic theme. In that case, a sentence which possesses an indirect speech acts might cause ambiguity. This
ambiguity could be related to more specific subject on maxim. Conducting another research specifically to maxim will allow the researcher understand more
about the information exchange. The humor can also be addressed for ambiguous statement might result in an inappropriate response. The possibility was still
opened beside the more popular subject on politeness.
C. Implications
For general educational purpose, the writer believes that the case can open learners‟ knowledge on how to use language in context. It emerges from the fact
that language learning is not simply learning how to construct a grammatically and semantically correct sentence. A context can dramatically change a sentence
meaning. Thus, by learning the indirect speech acts, an English learner can be more aware about the sentence meaning in a particular context.
In teaching pragmatics class, indirect speech acts can serve as one of the material. It is possible to be a practical use of two major topics in pragmatics. It
can serve as part of speech acts learning. On the other hand, indirect speech acts also employs the inference which closely related to Grice Cooperative Principles.
72
Therefore, in the field of pragmatics, indirect speech acts can be devised as a crucial part of material during the course. The learners can practice on the actual
use in a conversation to deepen their understanding on both topics. In learning speaking, indirect speech acts can also be used. Since a
sentence meaning can be affected by its context, u nderstanding someone‟s
intention through their speech by drawing inference is required since some people do not say the intended meaning directly. This fact can be used as a realization
that it is not evitable that a conversation will follow a strict rule to make it acceptable. As the case in point was shown in the research object, there are
alternatives in uttering a same meaning speech by using a different form of sentence. It can help the learners to build up their communicative competence
mentioned earlier by Van Herk.
73
REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. 2003. Teach yourself linguistics 6
th
ed.. London: Hodder. Alston, W. P. 2000. Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. New York:
Cornell University Press. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A. 2002. Introduction to research in
education 6
th
ed.. London: Wadsworth. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K. 2010. Introduction to research in
education 8
th
ed.. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Broomley,
P. n.d.
Improvisation .
Retrieved July
1, 2014,
from http:comedians.about.comodglossarygimprovisation.htm
Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Fasold, R., Connor-Linton, J. Eds. 2006. An introduction to language and linguistics
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fraenkel, J. R Wallen, N. E. 2009. How to design and evaluate research in
education . New York: The McGraw-hill companies.
Green, J. 2003. Cassel l’s dictionary of slang. London: Cassell.
Huang, Y. 2006. Speech Acts. In Mey, J. L. Ed., Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics
2
nd
ed. pp. 1000-1009. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Krippendorf, K. 2004. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology.
London: Sage Publications. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. Svartvik, J. 1994. A communicative grammar of English. London:
Longman Group Limited. Levinson, S. C. 1984. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
